OUR CHILDREN ARE OUR FUTURE

Editor -- This month, Congress may vote to change fundamentally the way in which the United States treats its children.

For years, our country has provided for children who face need through no fault of their own. This is a very important point -- one that seems to have been forgotten by the current Congress, which proposes to abandon children as it hurries to balance the budget.

Each year in the United States, 2.9 million children are abused and neglected; 14.3 million children live in poverty; and 68,000 children are homeless each night, through no fault of their own. Despite this fact, Congress is suddenly holding our children hostage to circumstances out of their control. Yes, the budget should be balanced, but not at the expense of children who cannot help themselves.

The children whom we abandon now represent the future of our country. While we might believe that providing a child tax credit will help families with children, what are we saying about ourselves by denying this benefit to one out of three families because they are too poor to qualify?

While we might believe cutting off all immigrants -- legal and illegal -- from such benefits as food stamps and Medicaid may deter abuse of our public assistance programs, what are we saying about ourselves when we allow the children of these families to go hungry?

And while we might believe that cutting aid to teenage parents will discourage out-of-wedlock births, what are we saying about ourselves when we deprive the children of these parents the support they desperately need?

As child advocates, Kids in Common believes it is our fundamental responsibility to protect the health and well-being of all our children.

We must call on our elected officials to reject these mean-spirited "reforms" that would sacrifice the most helpless among us on the altar of a balanced budget.

ELECT REDWOOD CITY MAYOR

Editor -- Recently, two-time defeated council candidate Uncle Joe Steinfeld proposed the idea that Redwood City's mayor be chosen by election instead of the current method of having the City Council itself choose.

Uncle Joe first proposed this idea about a year ago, after his first trouncing for council. Surprisingly, he never brought it up again during his recent losing campaign. That's unfortunate, because I think it is a good idea.

With a population of more than 75,000 and growing, Redwood City has become a important city on the Peninsula.

We are the home of numerous major corporations and, with the completion of the Sequoia Station Shopping Center and the downtown Broadway area, the city's retail section is bound to grow.

A separately elected mayor, who would be somewhat more independent than a mayor chosen by the council, could effectively serve the public and political needs of the city.

Quite frankly, the only thing that concerns me about this idea is Uncle Joe's support.

As we all know, Uncle Joe has never been a good loser, and generally, his reform ideas are his way of getting even with those he believes have crossed him. But even a paranoid politician can be right sometimes, and this may be one such occasion.

Despite Uncle Joe, I still think that an elected mayor is an idea whose time has come and that the suggestion should at least be debated by the community.

I would hope that the council would strongly consider holding a public hearing and consider placing this proposal on the ballot next November.

Perhaps after a full public discussion, the council would be able to get a sense of the public's feeling about this issue.

A STELLAR CANDIDATE

Editor -- For those of the electorate who will be voting December 12 for the replacement of Norm Mineta in the House of Representatives, we offer these thoughts for your consideration:

Just like Halley's Comet, which appears about every 80 years, a bright star comes along to represent our district in the Congress.

We have supported Tom Campbell ever since he knocked off the incumbent in the late 1980s. We recognized a rare individual.

What sold us was when he was asked several questions that he couldn't answer. I thought we would get the typical "mumbo-jumbo," but instead, Tom said, "I don't have the knowledge of that. Please let me check it out and get back to you when I can answer thoroughly and in depth."

That sold us, right then and there. We are independent voters signed up with the Reform Party, so we can honestly say that we have no biases toward Republicans or Democrats. We are just looking for the best person to represent this District.

Tom Campbell, in all his political life, has been up front with voters.

Let's keep this "Halley's Comet Star" around to serve us as our next

congressman.

HARRY MERKER

COMMUNITY SERVICE

Editor -- The article by Bill Workman (Chronicle, November 29, "Stanford Poll Finds Drop in Volunteering") was interesting. I would like to add some additional information that might explain at least some of the change.

Many high schools -- private and public -- have a community service graduation requirement. Students must work some number of hours during the school year at community service site (hospice, animal shelter, day care center, etc.). This has carried over to many middle schools as well.

In San Francisco, I know that both University High School and the Cathedral School for Boys have community service programs that they take very seriously. They are also schools from which a Stanford student might have reasonably been expected to graduate.

Students are also told that community service is a positive way to differentiate themselves during the admissions process -- thus it can also be a case of enlightened self-interest for some (certainly not all) incoming college freshmen to have participated in a community service activity.

That being said, it has been my happy experience to know a fair number of college age men and women who take service to the community seriously, and I think the numbers presented, whatever the margin for error, represents a positive message for us.